Dr. Pramod Jaiswal has joined the Khabarhub team as its Strategic Affairs Editor. In his new role, Dr. Jaiswal will oversee the Strategic Affairs desk at Khabarhub.

The new Strategic affairs desk will strengthen our round-the-clock reportage as it seeks to deepen and bolster the coverage of issues related to foreign policy and strategic affairs. In the coming days, Khabarhub will focus on in-depth analysis, coverage, and interviews with the leading foreign policy experts, diplomats, strategic analysts, and leaders.

Khabarhub had a conversation with Dr. Jaiswal where he covered a wide range of subjects including challenges in Foreign Policy, Geopolitics and the Strategic Landscape of Nepal, current and future prospects of hydropower, and International Infrastructure Projects in Nepal, et al.

First of all, on behalf of Khabarhub, I would like to congratulate you for being appointed as Strategic Affairs Editor of the Khabarhub. I welcome you and wish you successful tenure. Before we start, could you please briefly share about yourself?

Thank you so much. I would like to thank Khabarhub for extending the offer to join your organization. I am elated to begin the new role as Strategic Affairs Editor and look forward to contributing to the best of my abilities.

I certainly believe we can mutually benefit from this cooperation. Nepal’s geographical position forms a critical geostrategic setting with the interplay of greater geopolitical and security interests of India and China.

However, comprehensive coverage of such developments is still lacking within the Nepali media. Hence, I am convinced this would be a great opportunity for me to contribute to the nation through Khabarhub.

Briefly introducing myself, I am a Research Director at a think tank called Nepal Institute for International Cooperation and Engagement. I also have been working as a regular and visiting faculty at different universities of Nepal and China such as Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu University, Pokhara University, Army Command and Staff College, China Foreign Affairs University, Fudan University, Tongji University, and Qinghai University of Nationalities. At the moment, I am associated as a Visiting Fellow at Sandia National Laboratories, Cooperative Monitoring Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico, US, and Senior Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi.

Previously, I have worked with Manohar Parikkar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi and as Delhi Correspondent with the ‘Rising Nepal’.

I pursued my Masters’, M.Phil and Ph.D. in International Relations from the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and have published more than a dozen books on foreign policy and have been engaged as an Editor at some academic journals. My research interests include China and South Asia. Hence, I have spent much time in those countries.

How do you look at the geopolitics of Nepal in recent times? What are the interests of India and China in Nepal?

We all are aware that Nepal has a pivotal strategic position, geographically situated between two rising powers of Asia that many believe is the emerging great powers.

Both are placed as the top 5 largest economies of the world; with the world’s largest military personnel, possess nuclear weapons, and have the largest military spending. Unfortunately, both are rival powers. 

Nepal’s geopolitical sensitivities have escalated further as it needs to geostrategically balance itself between the two giant nuclear countries and rising global powers, India and China. Nepal shares its borders with the most sensitive parts of China – the Tibet Autonomous Region and likewise has an open border with India.

Hence, security is the prime concern of both countries. Thus, the Chinese interest in Nepal is to safeguard its strategic concerns emanating from the Tibetan issues and dilute the predominant influence of India in Nepal. Apart from security, India also has an economic interest in Nepal. 

So, in this situation, what should be Nepal’s Foreign Policy objective?

Well, in this complex geopolitical situation, Nepal should engage with China, diplomatically counterbalance India and develop its economy with the support of India and China, which are the rising economies of the world.

Additionally, the current pandemic is prompting enormous geopolitical instability. So, it is important that Nepal gain the confidence of its neighbors, including the other powers like the United States, the European Union and balance their interests in a way that remains aligned with Nepal’s foreign policy goals to achieve the best out of these relations.

You just said that Security is the prime interest of both India and China in Nepal. In this situation, how can Nepal deal with both the neighbors because it is likely that while addressing the interest of one, Nepal might hurt the other neighbors?

As I elucidated earlier, the security interest of both immediate neighbors has been and will be a major challenge for Nepal’s foreign policy engagement.

While Nepal in itself is yet to develop a well-founded foreign Policy, the recent appointment of a new Prime Minister will surely add new facets to Nepal’s foreign relations and policies.

Set against this background pragmatism with a multifaceted approach to security is the key. Nepal needs to continue to increase the substance of cooperation in such bilateral ties.

It needs to win the faith and goodwill from both its immediate neighbors in its favor, while also reiterating the fact that all Nepal seeks is economically benefit from both the rising powers.

However, Nepal should also be cautious about its soil being used against any of its neighbors. At the same time, while engaging with any country, it should consider whether it is going to upset the security interests of its neighbors.

It is challenging but not impossible. Having said that, it is also equally important that Nepal stand strong together as a nation with a strengthened state structure and power to avoid unsolicited intervention from external forces.

Do media reports state that China has increased its presence in Nepal in recent times? What is your take on this?

It is true and I look at it at two levels. First, with the rise of China, it has expanded its reach around the world. It has expanded its reach all over Asia, Europe as well as in Africa and Latin America. Hence, it is obvious for China to increase its presence in Nepal, which is next door.

Second, China has also been able to create its space around the world due to the flawed policy and negligence of other powers.

For instance, when other great powers failed to give enough emphasis to Africa and its development, China was able to leverage it. In Nepal, where there is a policy flaw or lack of enough attention from India, China has grabbed the opportunities.

Nepal has signed an MoU on China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, there has not been any remarkable progress. What might be the reason behind it?

It’s been more than four years since Nepal signed the MoU on China’s BRI. Nevertheless, Nepal has failed to make any headway on infrastructure project negotiations.

Several underlying factors have led to this state. Lack of clarity about the projects, frequent failure to draft a timely pre-feasibility study and detailed project report, funding modality and the current pandemic has created a major hurdle in ensuring the progress of the project in Nepal.

Similarly, geopolitical compulsions and political instability within the country also have equally affected the initiative.

At the time when there is increasing polarization among the major powers – globally as well as in the region – there is apprehension among Nepali leaders that engaging on China’s BRI will be perceived as increasing proximity between Nepal and China which can be counterproductive for the stability of their government.

Secondly, due to fragmented politics in Nepal’s experiences of South Asian countries such as Sri Lanka and the small size of Nepal’s economy makes it difficult for Nepal to engage in mega projects under BRI. This is because Nepal does not have the capacity nor wants to be caught in the controversy of the ‘debt trap’.

Nepal has huge potential in the hydropower sector. India has the capacity to invest capital and technology and it can also be the potential market. In spite of good relations between these two countries, why they failed to benefit from the opportunity?

Yes, that is really unfortunate. Nepal and India, in spite of having a tremendous hydropower potential and the capacity to invest economically and technologically, with huge market demand have not been able to harness their potential. Both countries have failed to pull their resources and engage to tap the hydropower resources.

While Nepal has heavily politicized its development projects, not only water but all – be it BRI or MCC; India alongside has failed to take Nepal into confidence.

There is a perception in Nepal that it has been cheated by India on the issues of hydropower. And India has not worked on the management of such public perception.

In the last 50 years, Nepal’s resources have gone wasted. Nepal imports electricity from India. Nepal would have exported it to India if Nepal’s leaders were visionary.

I would call it a missed opportunity as the world now is gradually moving towards nuclear power plants due to serious environmental damage hydropower can incur.

According to a study, in 2017, hydropower accounted for a mere 16 percent of worldwide electricity generation.

The major reason behind it is the flooding of reservoirs behind dams and slowing the flow of the river system as it has a serious impact on the environment and local populations.

You might be aware that during the construction of the world’s largest hydroelectric dam – the Three Gorges Dam – around 1.3 million people were displaced.

Similarly, in terms of the number of deaths from accidents, hydroelectric power is the deadliest energy source. Hence, it is the biggest failure of Nepal’s leadership as well as of India. It could have benefited both countries immensely.

How do you look at Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)?

I personally believe that MCC is in Nepal’s interest. If Nepal can be part of BRI, there is no harm in accepting MCC. Nepal has very poor infrastructure and its improvement can accelerate its development.

It needs huge assistance as well as investment in this sector. If Nepal had some concerns on the terms and conditions of MCC, it should have been raised on time.

Similarly, no assistance comes without strings attached. In such a situation, the best a nation can do is negotiate at its best and benefit from it.

As I said earlier, like all our development projects, MCC is also highly politicized. If the concerns are genuine, they should have been raised during the time of drafting and negotiations.

However, Americans have also contributed to some extent in complicating the issues of MCC. Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for South Asia at the US Department of State David J Ranz, during his visit to Kathmandu in May 2019 made remarks that MCC was an important initiative under the Indo-Pacific Strategy.

Since then, MCC is seen more like an initiative to encircle China, a strategic project rather than an economic one. Ranz’s statement added to the complexities.

What do you think are the major challenges to Nepal’s foreign policy?

The biggest challenge for Nepal’s foreign policy is balancing its neighbors and exercising strategic autonomy. It is caught between two adversarial powers who are in neck-to-neck competition on all fronts – be it economic or military.

They have territorial disputes and have fought wars. Apart from that, they follow two different political systems.

While Nepal and India have close socio, cultural, political, economic and historical ties with a similar political system, it sees immense economic opportunities in engaging with China – which is no different in the approach of Japan, India, the US and South Korea towards China. The emergence of QUAD will bring additional complexities.

Nepal also lacks vision and direction. It has failed to pronounce its long-term and short-term aim on bilateral, multilateral and regional aspects of relations.

Apart from high-level visits once in a while, Nepal is still consumed in dealing with its immediate neighbors – India and China.

It has failed to diversify its foreign policy objectives ever since it joined the United Nations. The reason behind it is a vicious circle of political uncertainties and instabilities of Nepal.

Similarly, unlike many countries, the political parties of Nepal have failed to build consensus or minimum common grounds on Nepal’s Foreign Policy.

Moreover, new non-traditional security challenges are emerging around the world, which will be grueling for Nepal.

For instance, the coronavirus pandemic. Nepal is most vulnerable to climate change as the snowcapped mountains are melting and glaciers are bursting.

It is unfortunate that most countries substantially raise the issue of drowning islands, but not the melting of the Himalayas and the glacial lakes, despite the fact that the rise in sea level is due to the melting of snow.

Hence, Nepal needs strong international support to raise these grave concerns. Similarly, the next generation is going to witness the intense conflict in cyberspace, hence, Nepal has to prepare itself for the upcoming tech-wars because it will have transnational implications.

Even though Cryptocurrencies are popular in the developing world they also render security and economic threats and are declared as an illegal form of financial tender according to the Nepal Rastra Bank act. Hence, issues like cybersecurity, cryptocurrency will be predominant and will impact all the sectors.

Migration, trafficking, terrorism, transboundary water issues are other equally challenging factors. Neither Nepal has been able to control the massive brain drain of Nepalese youth, nor it has harnessed the opportunities through the skills and resources of NRNs (non-resident Nepali) and Nepalese diasporas. Nepal’s soft powers are untapped and its Economic Diplomacy and Science Diplomacy are lackadaisical.

In a nutshell, grappling with the China-India contentions coupled with geopolitical competition between the US and China, the fragile strategic stability of South Asia, earning confidence from neighbors and the international community for effective economic diplomacy, and most importantly acquiring vaccines to bounce back as soon as possible from the pandemic will be extremely challenging for the nation.

How can MOFA overcome those challenges? How can it prepare itself to deal with these challenges?

First, the leadership should have a vision and aspiration. Without either, it will lead nowhere. It should formulate a clear long-term and short-term vision for Nepal based on its national interest and national goal which can guide the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Second, efficient manpower should be a prerequisite at MOFA. Most of Nepal’s important missions are headed by political appointees.

Nepal does not have efficient training colleges and universities for international relations. Few have emerged very recently.

China, which has the highest number of embassies and consulates, established a dedicated China Foreign Affairs University in 1955 to train the diplomats.

Indian School of International Studies was established in 1955, which later merged with Jawaharlal Nehru University, contributed as a powerhouse for Indian diplomacy.

Hence, there is a requirement for a similar small-size institution or a full-fledged university to train the diplomats and produce foreign policy analysts for the country.

Similarly, amelioration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in terms of its size and structure is a must. The 2019 Country Ranking of Global Diplomacy Index of Lowy Institute placed Nepal at the bottom six.

Lower than most of the South Asian countries. Hence, the need to expand its diplomatic presence is widely evident

Moreover, there is a need for structural change in the way Nepal looks at the national interest. National interest drives the Foreign policy of all the nations.

However, with the changing time, there is a need to look at it from a wider perspective. The narrow perspective of nationalism and national interest will not only isolate Nepal but also won’t elevate its role in the international system.

There is an interesting article “Nation-States and State Nations’ by Cynthia Enloe and this debate is significant in the context of Nepal.

Unless Nepal clearly defines the relations between ‘nation’ and ‘state’, Nepal will be caught into hyper-nationalism which will never let it look beyond, but rather bring instability.

The concept of ‘nation-states’ is the western construct that evolved before the crystallization of the structure of political authority in Europe and the West.

However, in Asia and Africa, authority and sovereignty ran ahead of self-conscious national identity and cultural integration which produced ‘state nations.

Their implications are significant to understand the role of nationalism in political stability and economic modernization as well as its possible roles in reshaping the patterns of political control and consolidation.

Hence, Nepal as a ‘state nation itself has to evolve, rather than placing the entire weight and blame on MOFA. Nepal has to achieve political stability and economic modernization first.